[DrBubb]

LISTEN TWICE to this broadcast:
http://www.netcastda...2006-0218-2.asx
*especially from the 36th minute

Then let's talk.

PUPLAVA's PEAK OIL PANEL discusses some Big Issues:
(with Richard Heinberg, author of Powerdown, and James Howard Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency)
= = = = =

<< Image removed due to breach of Copyright >>

The late 20th century dream of a "Drive-in Utopia" was flawed, and will get us into deep
trouble, as the assumptions that it was based upon prove unsustainable.
"We are headed into a period of turbulence and hardship... violence & political mischief"
We need to wake up from "consumerists idiocy" to become brave, neighborly, and generous.

Why? Peak oil means we are headed to a period of expensive and scarce oil.
Think: shortages, rationing of petrol, fewer jobs, mobs of unemployed...

WHAT ARE THE WINNING STRATEGIES: ("Carless Community"?)

+ Hands-on and local, because long-distance transport is too expensive,
+ Near to agricultural area, so food will not be too expensive,
+ Neighborhoods where people know each other, and care about their welfare,
+ Public transport as the lifeline to jobs and other life necessities,
+ Practical skills will provide livelihood,
+ A vision beyond consumerism which unites people & gives purpose (religion?)

<< Image removed due to breach of Copyright >>

= = =
LINKS:
Financial Sense... : http://www.netcastda.../fsnewshour.htm
Oil Drum website : http://www.OilDrum.com
Hirsch Report..... : http://www.projectce...t_Proj_Cens.pdf

This post has been edited by Webmaster: 22 July 2007 - 08:49 PM

[DrBubb]

No interest in this important issue?

Ok. Maybe people have already seen and read enough discussion about it.

Future Themes: ??

+ carless communities
+ hands-on and local
+ functioning independently
+ anti-consumerist (no more cheese-flavoured dog food? no more makeover tv programmes?)
+ rediscovering religion
+ DIY existence

Can you think of more

This post has been edited by DrBubb: 18 February 2006 - 03:31 PM

[winkie]

DrBubb, on Feb 17 2006, 11:46 PM, said:

LISTEN TWICE to this broadcast:
http://www.netcastda...2006-0218-2.asx
*especially from the 36th minute

Then let's talk.

PUPLAVA's PEAK OIL PANEL discusses some Big Issues:
(with Richard Heinberg, author of Powerdown, and James Howard Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency)
= = = = =



The late 20th century dream of a "Drive-in Utopia" was flawed, and will get us into deep
trouble, as the assumptions that it was based upon prove unsustainable.
"We are headed into a period of turbulence and hardship... violence & political mischief"
We need to wake up from "consumerists idiocy" to become brave, neighborly, and generous.

Why? Peak oil means we are headed to a period of expensive and scarce oil.
Think: shortages, rationing of petrol, fewer jobs, mobs of unemployed...

WHAT ARE THE WINNING STRATEGIES: ("Carless Community"?)

+ Hands-on and local, because long-distance transport is too expensive,
+ Near to agricultural area, so food will not be too expensive,
+ Neighborhoods where people know each other, and care about their welfare,
+ Public transport as the lifeline to jobs and other life necessities,
+ Practical skills will provide livelihood,
+ A vision beyond consumerism which unites people & gives purpose (religion?)



= = =
LINKS:
Financial Sense... : http://www.netcastda.../fsnewshour.htm
Oil Drum website : http://www.OilDrum.com

Sorry Dr Bubb,


Life's a bitch and then you die.

[BuyingBear]

DrBubb, on Feb 18 2006, 03:31 PM, said:

No interest in this important issue?

Ok. Maybe people have already seen and read enough discussion about it.

Future Themes: ??

+ carless communities

Maybe in the context of the US. The UK is rather different as urban areas are already pretty packed and increasingly dense, we already have Red Ken, 80% fuel duty, cameras, speed bumps, clampers, tow trucks, ticketers... even if your turbo-diesel does 50mpg you'd be pretty nutty to want to use a car as things stand regardless of peak oil.

The US wouldn't even know how to deal with just one of the above obstacles, they're already outraged at having to pay 30p a litre so they can fill up their 12mpg SUV which has worse gas-millage than their grandfather's Model-T Ford. (20 - 25 mpg v. 14 - 18mpg today)

This post has been edited by BuyingBear: 18 February 2006 - 03:48 PM

[frugalista]

Dr Bubb,

The urban future vision you post is one I'd love to see and one any town planner or citizen with a bit of civic pride would be glad of.

But, there is no civic pride amongst America's rich. Why spend money on *public* places? That's just funded by some tax dollars I can't spend on my own private country retreat. Why make the trip to the shops a pleasant walk? Those tax dollars could instead buy me an air-conditioned SUV with leather seats and a TV in the back for the kids.

Everyone in France, Spain or Italy seems to drive a pretty crappy car. Americans see this and feel sorry for them. But who cares? The walk to the shops in your average European town is down a little cobbled street, across the park, and past some lovely old builidings. And anyone can enjoy that walk, poor or rich.

The UK is on the borderline, it could go either way. Out of town DIY centers and supermarkets started springing up in the 80s, coinciding with a running down of public trasnport and a huge increase in car use. Recent years have seen a bit more urban regeneration, but it seems to me there's a long way to go and not a lot of public appetite for spending on civic spaces.

frugalista

[MarkG]

The real problem is that 'peak oil' is being used by the greenies to push their anti-car agenda. There is no reason whatsoever why cars _have_ to run on oil, it's just been the cheapest and easiest fuel to use and switching over is a pain.

Public transport sucks for most of the population, and always will until there's a bus every thirty seconds from my house direct to where I work which gets there in five minutes with no other passengers on board. A 21st century economy is going to demand more mobility, not a return to the 19th century with everyone going t'mill at the same time and returning at the same time.

[Red Baron]

Quote

Life's a bitch and then you die.

No.

Life's a bitch then you marry one, and then you die.......

(with apologies to an old friend of mine)

[DrBubb]

Frug., your:
"The urban future vision you post is one I'd love to see ...But, there is no civic pride amongst America's rich. ...Everyone in France, Spain or Italy seems to drive a pretty crappy car. Americans see this and feel sorry for them."

WELL,
I do agree that America is MOST EXPOSED to the peak oil crisis,
Here's why... some stats from the Hirsch Report:

"U.S. consumes more oil than any other country – about 20 MM bpd... 26 percent of world production...
Western Europe currently consumes the second largest amount (18 percent) followed by Japan (7 percent), China (6 percent), and the FSU (5 percent), with over 150 other countries accounting for the remaining 38 percent of production."

- -
ALSO think of the size of America, and how cities, homes, and places of work are connected mainly
by highways, with little public transport. Much of American life takes places in the suburbs, with long
drives to work, to school, and to play. And the cheap consumer goods that Americans enjoy travel long
distances, by ship, rail, and truck from China and other third world manufacturing countries.

Clearly, Europe is less exposed, but we are far from being unexposed.

I am trying to discover the areas of the Uk which are LEAST VULNERABLE to this crisis. Thoughts?
And why?

[BuyingBear]

frugalista, on Feb 18 2006, 04:00 PM, said:

The UK is on the borderline, it could go either way. Out of town DIY centers and supermarkets started springing up in the 80s, coinciding with a running down of public trasnport and a huge increase in car use. Recent years have seen a bit more urban regeneration, but it seems to me there's a long way to go and not a lot of public appetite for spending on civic spaces.

Indeed, some of the shift can be explained and forgiven by the fact many of our urban areas are not very safe or inviting places to be in, especially so in the 80's, if you have an out of town complex which is clean and safe you cannot blame people for going there, it's not simply about selfishness. People blame out of town development for killing off town centers but if the truth be told they were already unappealing and half dead to begin with.

I'm sure if you visit many small market towns in the UK you will also see beautiful old squares that are clean and well lit, you will find that people still walk to these areas quite happily. However this breaks down when an area is above a certain size, the over-centralisation actually drives traffic and creates problems in the middle. Other factors don't help, like increased density targets and brownfield development in areas that were formerly zoned for other uses. It doesn't matter how well things are planned, if there's too much density it makes life unpleasant, packed and drives people out to the edges (usually in a car to out of town developments), or just drives them out completely leaving them car dependent.

Density targets are inherently flawed and counter productive, in many cases it would be better to establish two market-towns with modest centers of their own within easy walking distance, rather than cram everyone into a single area and then drive people out to the edges which results in more overall land take and car use when the plan fails.

This post has been edited by BuyingBear: 18 February 2006 - 04:26 PM

[DrBubb]

= =

"The real problem is that 'peak oil' is being used by the greenies to push their anti-car agenda"

What's wrong with being anti-car?
I am from Detroit, the motor city, where they foolishly worship the automobile.
I think it is disgusting, and I saw how the automobile, and highways everywhere destroyed the
quality of life in American cities like Detroit. It is hard to find public areas with a "sense of place",
where you feel that pedestrians are welcome, safe, and unthreatened by cars.

This is one important reason why I have preferred to live in cities like: Boston, New York,
Chicago, and London

BB,
Your:
"Density targets are inherently flawed and counter productive, in many cases it would be better to establish two market-towns with modest centers of their own within easy walking distance, rather than cram everyone into a single area and then drive people out to the edges which results in more overall land take and car use when the plan fails."

this is a good point.
These factors, which help to create an appealing living, attractive for pedestrians, are critical for
creating quality of life. If the only quality of life can be found in people's living rooms, people will
stay there and morph into couch potatoes, as far too many have become.

Art Project

De-lettering Public space

This post has been edited by DrBubb: 18 February 2006 - 04:40 PM

[Solvent Celt]

Number one I'd imagine has to be food production without oil derivatives. It's back to shire horses I expect.

[munro]

The thing is, DrB, you're not likely to get much discussion of these sorts of issues here, because they aren't the sort that a free market capitalist "society" can deal with. They require too much by way of strategic planning, consensus, and honest, public-spirited politicians. All of which are in short supply...and the truth is that this sort of thinking goes utterly against the grain for those who see the state and government as inherently wicked. In other words practically everyone who is right-wing Conservative, which is many, if not most, of the posters on here.

We're still stuck in a 19th century mentality of hard work being good for the soul, that everyone should be out at work in some way or another and contributing to UK plc. Which actually means most people doing inherently worthless jobs that do little but keep the hamster wheel turning and create pollution and environmental damage. And yes, I do include a great deal of the public sector in that.

Whatever else might or might not be said about socialism and communism both of them start from the assumption that people are inherently good. Free-market capitalism begins from the premise that people are inherently greedy and regulation is needed to take the edge off the consequences of that.

Meanwhile it will continue to be business as usual until the effects of pollution and environmental damage become devastating. Free-market capitalism is like a colony of locusts - it will destroy everything in its path until there's nothing left, at which point the locusts die. And if that sounds implausible, look at the models run by free-market economists - that demand will bring forth more supply, so there's no peak oil problem as it will just keep appearing when the price rises high enough. As if.

Rant over!

[DrBubb]

GOOD REVIEW of the Hirsch Report - look at the source !

EXCERPT
US report acknowledges peak-oil threat
By Adam Porter in Perpignan, France
Wednesday 09 March 2005, 18:23 Makka Time, 15:23 GMT

Some say global oil production has passed its peak point
-----------------------------------

It has long been denied that the US government bases any policy around the idea that global oil production may be in terminal decline.

But a new US government-sponsored report, obtained by Aljazeera.net, does exactly that.

Authored by Robert Hirsch, Roger Bezdek and Robert Wendling and titled The Peaking of World Oil production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management, the report is an assessment requested by the US Department of Energy (DoE), National Energy Technology Laboratory.

It was prepared by Hirsch, who is a senior energy programme adviser at the private scientific and military company, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).

They work extensively on defence and geopolitical issues for clients, including many for the US government.

Advisory roles

Among current job openings at SAIC are positions at Fort Benning (formerly School of the Americas) and a private military contract to help retrain the Albanian air force in Tirana.

Hirsch has held a wide variety of positions in the US energy hierarchy including senior energy analyst at the Rand Corporation, through to a presidentially appointed assistant administrator for solar, geothermal and advanced energy systems.

...MORE: http://english.aljaz...759205A9DBE.htm

[BuyingBear]

DrBubb, on Feb 18 2006, 04:27 PM, said:

= =

"The real problem is that 'peak oil' is being used by the greenies to push their anti-car agenda"

What's wrong with being anti-car?

It's not quite that simple, obviously when an urban area is primarily given over to the car because people can't be bothered to haul their ass 500 meters once arriving in a City bad things happen.

However, the car represents a sense of liberty, freedom of movement and assembly form the basis of any democratic society, and I don't like the underlying thinking of organisations like TFL or public bodies that count me as some sort of 'unit' that needs to be 'transported', or often not, given how often many decide to go out on strike on any given day without warning. People don't like this sort of uncertainty, you are essentially trusting other people with a basic tenet, and the more dependent you are on them the better position they're in to take advantage (like strike).

If I want to visit Manchester this evening I can hop in my car now and arrive there cheaper than quicker than using any other method, despite the fact the M6 is a gloried carpark the car still triumphs. The solution isn't to bring down the car but to level up the alternatives, if I could board a 300km/h train to Manchester for a £10 I'd take that instead, trying to fight a war against the car seems futile if the alternative is just as crowded and more expensive. They've tried endless fines, tax, clamps, bumps, chicanes, narrowing roads, bus lanes, but the car still wins, as with so many other areas the private method leaves the public for dust. If it can withstand the onslaught of hypertaxation what does that say about the alternatives?

This post has been edited by BuyingBear: 18 February 2006 - 04:48 PM

[Yankee]

We've already begun to see a move back to the cities in America. (That's one reason for the large number of condos being built in cities.) The people I know who've moved from the suburbs to the cities usually cite long daily car commutes as the major reason for the shift. They also like to walk to cultural amenities. These people, whether Baby Boomers or young professionals, tend to be of a liberal bent, however. They don't mind living side-by-side with people of different ethnic and racial backgrounds.

Although I grew up in a prosperous American suburb, I have lived throughout my adult life in cities. Right now, I live in an urban neighborhood that has the feel of a European village. It has a strong sense of community, an eclectic population (lots of artists types; we even have our own poet laureate ), and shops that can be walked to easily and where the owners know your name. It's also on the edge of a large, urban park. The neighborhood has become incredibly popular during the past decade as more and more people have learned to appreciate such amenities. The houses are old (for American ones) and close together, but the people who live here tend to be tolerant and easy-going and, thus, don't mind the "togetherness."

Most Americans, however, don't like living in such close quarters. That's why we have suburban sprawl. Also, there's a strange political aspect to suburban living. Many people think efforts to build new communities with sidewalks and shopping areas and mass transit smack of "socialism" or, even worse, "liberalism." They (and their elected politicians) fight it. It's an odd political/cultural divide in our country, and one, frankly, I don't quite understand.

Of course, if (rather, when) oil prices do go up, American suburbanites are going to be in deep, deep trouble. That's when they'll wish they hadn't fought so hard for more roads and against mass transit.